Stroke is a major cause of mortality, morbidity and economic burden. Strokes can be thrombotic, embolic or haemorrhagic. The key risk factor for cardioembolic stroke is atrial fibrillation or flutter, and oral anticoagulation (OAC) is recommended in all but the lowest-risk patients with evidence of these arrhythmias. Risk factors for thrombotic stroke overlap strongly with those for other atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases (ASCVDs). Antiplatelet therapy (APT) should be considered in patients with established ASCVD to reduce risk of cardiovascular events, including stroke. Intensification from single to dual APT or a combination of APT with low-dose OAC can reduce ischaemic stroke risk further, but increases bleeding risk. Blood pressure and lipid profile should be controlled appropriately to guideline targets. In patients with diabetes, good glycaemic control can reduce stroke risk. Inflammation is another emerging target for stroke prevention. Overall, comprehensive assessment and pharmacological modification of risk factors are central to stroke prevention.

Patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) who undergo lower extremity revascularization (LER) are at high risk for cardiovascular and limb-related ischemic events. The role of antithrombotic therapy is to prevent thrombotic complications, but this requires balancing increased risk of bleeding events. The dual pathway inhibition (DPI) strategy including aspirin and low-dose rivaroxaban after LER has been shown to reduce major adverse cardiovascular and limb-related events without significant differences in major bleeding. There is now a need to implement the broad adoption of DPI therapy in PAD patients who have undergone LER in routine practice.

Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is a valid alternative to oral anticoagulation to prevent ischemic stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation.The devices approved in Europe and United States for percutaneous LAAC contain metal and temporary antithrombotic therapy is strongly recommended following implantation to prevent thrombus formation on the atrial device surface. There is still uncertainty regarding to the optimal antithrombotic drug regimen after device implantation for several reasons. Thus, this review aims at summarizing the available evidence and the remaining challenges related to the management of antithrombotic therapy in the context of LAAC procedure.

Managing antithrombotic therapy in patients undergoing complex and high-risk in indicated patients, including those treated with complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or presenting with cardiogenic shock (CS), is challenging. This review highlights the critical role of antithrombotic therapy, during and after PCI, to optimize the efficacy while minimizing risks. Unfractionated heparin remains the mainstay anticoagulant for complex PCI and CS, with bivalirudin as a potential safer alternative. Cangrelor offers consistent antiplatelet effects, especially when timely absorption of oral agents is uncertain.

暂无摘要。

Patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) experience major cardiovascular and limb events. Antithrombotic strategies including antiplatelets and anticoagulants remain a cornerstone of treatment and prevention. Recent trials have shown heterogeneity in the response to antithrombotic therapies in patients presenting primarily with PAD when compared to those presenting primarily with coronary artery disease. In addition, there is observed heterogeneity with regards to the effects of antiplatelets and anticoagulants with respect to different outcomes including cardiovascular and major adverse limb events. This, coupled with risks of bleeding, requires a patient-centered and holistic assessment of benefit-risk when selecting antithrombotic strategies for patients with PAD. A global multidisciplinary work group was convened to evaluate antithrombotic strategies in PAD and to summarize the current state of the art. Common clinical scenarios around antithrombotic decision making were provided. Finally, insights with regard to implementation future investigation were described.

Background The question of whether antiplatelet therapy (APT) should be discontinued prior to gastrectomy is controversial. In this study, we investigated the impact of continuing aspirin preoperatively on perioperative bleeding and thromboembolic complications in patients receiving gastrectomy for malignancy. Methods The study cohort comprised 1001 patients with malignant gastric tumors who had undergone gastrectomy between 2005 and 2021. This study excludes emergency surgery. The patients were allocated to the following three groups: those who continued aspirin monotherapy prior to surgery (cAPT group), those who stopped receiving it seven days prior to surgery (dAPT group), and those who did not take APT at any stage (non-APT group). The differences between the groups in intraoperative and postoperative complications, such as bleeding and thromboembolism, were examined. Results The non-APT group comprised 682 patients, the dAPT group had 164, and the cAPT group had 155. There were 22 bleeding events (2.2%) in the whole cohort, 11 (1.1%) of which occurred in the non-APT group, six (3.7%) in the dAPT group, and five (3.2%) in the cAPT group. The differences between the three groups were not significant in terms of bleeding complications. There were 10 (1.0%) thromboembolic events in the whole cohort, five (0.7%) of which occurred in the non-APT group, four (2.4%) in the dAPT group, and one (0.6%) in the cAPT group. The differences between the three groups were not significant in terms of thromboembolic complications. In a multivariate analysis of the whole cohort, intraoperative blood loss (≥1000 mL) (p < 0.001, odds ratio (OR) = 11.8) and multidrug APT (p < 0.001, OR = 7.8) were both independent predictors of bleeding complications. However, continuing to take aspirin before surgery was not a risk factor for bleeding complications. Conclusions In patients with malignant gastric tumors, preoperative continuation of aspirin monotherapy has no impact on either intraoperative or postoperative bleeding. Gastrectomy can be performed safely, even in patients who continue aspirin treatment.

Transcatheter aortic valve (TAV) thrombosis may manifest as subclinical leaflet thrombosis (SLT) and clinical valve thrombosis. SLT is relatively common (10%-20%) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement, but clinical implications are uncertain. Clinical valve thrombosis is rare (1.2%) and associated with bioprosthetic valve failure, neurologic or thromboembolic events, heart failure, and death. Treatment for TAV thrombosis has been understudied. In principle, anticoagulation may prevent TAV thrombosis. Non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants, as compared to antiplatelet therapy, are associated with reduced incidence of SLT, although at the cost of higher bleeding and all-cause mortality risk. We present an overview of existing literature for management of TAV thrombosis and propose a rational treatment algorithm. Vitamin K antagonists or non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants are the cornerstone of antithrombotic treatment. In therapy-resistant or clinically unstable patients, ultraslow, low-dose infusion of thrombolytics seems effective and safe and may be preferred over redo-transcatheter aortic valve replacement or explant surgery.

Cardiac masses pose significant diagnostic and therapeutic challenges in clinical practice. A 73-year-old male with a history of atrial fibrillation and percutaneous atrial septal defect (ASD) closure presented with an asymptomatic right atrial mass detected during routine transthoracic echocardiography follow-up. The mass measured 17 mm, with highly echoic peripheral areas and a heterogenous, low-echoic interior. The patient was asymptomatic and had no fever, embolic, or neurological symptoms. Multimodal imaging, including contrast-enhanced computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and transesophageal echocardiography, revealed a mobile nodular mass in the right atrium (RA); however, the results of each modality were not consistently suggestive of a specific disease. The presumptive diagnosis of thrombus was made based on the change and variability of echocardiographic findings over time and the response to antithrombotic medications. Anticoagulant therapy with edoxaban led to the complete resolution of the mass, confirming the diagnosis of a thrombus. This case highlights the importance of multimodal imaging and temporal changes in findings in the diagnosis and management of RA masses and underscores the need for careful thrombotic risk assessment in patients with a history of atrial fibrillation, ASD, and cardiac procedures.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of percutaneous biopsy and microwave ablation (B + MWA) in patients with pulmonary nodules (PNs) who are receiving antithrombotic therapy by rivaroxaban as bridging therapy.
METHODS: The study comprised 187 patients with PNs who underwent 187 B + MWA sessions from January 1, 2020, to December 31, 2021. The enrolled patients were divided into two groups: Group A, who received antithrombotic therapy five days before the procedure and received rivaroxaban as a bridging drug during hospitalization, and group B, who had no antithrombotic treatment. Information about the technical success rate, positive biopsy rate, complete ablative rate, and major complications were collected and analyzed.
RESULTS: Group A comprised 53 patients and group B comprised 134 patients. The technical success rate was 100% in both groups. The positive biopsy rates were 88.68% and 91.04%, respectively (p = 0.6211, X2 = 0.2443). In groups A and B, the complete ablative rates at 6, 12, and 24 months were 100.0% versus 99.25%, 96.23% versus 96.27%, and 88.68% versus 89.55%, respectively. There were no significant differences in bleeding and thrombotic complications between the two groups. No grade 5 complications occurred.
CONCLUSIONS: It is generally considered safe and effective that patients who are on antithrombotic therapy by rivaroxaban as bridging to undergo B + MWA for treating PNs.